On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 01:19:30PM +1200, David Rowley wrote: > When I wrote the code I admit that I was probably wearing my > object-orientated programming hat. I had in mind that the whole > function series would have made a good class. Passing the > CopyMultiInsertInfo was sort of the non-OOP equivalent to having > this/Me/self available, as it would be for any instance method of a > class. Back to reality, this isn't OOP, so I was wearing the wrong > hat. I think the unused parameter should likely be removed. It's > probably not doing a great deal of harm since the function is static > inline and the compiler should be producing any code for the unused > param, but for the sake of preventing confusion, it should be removed. > Ashutosh had to ask about it, so it wasn't immediately clear what the > purpose of it was. Since there's none, be gone with it, I say.
Sounds fair to me. This has been introduced by 86b8504, so let's see what's Andres take. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
